Kane v. Garcia Espitia
Kane, Warden v. Garcia Espitia
Opinion
Per Curiam.
Respondent Garcia Espitia, a criminal defendant who chose to proceed pro se, was convicted in California state court of carjacking and other offenses. He had received no law library access while in jail before trial — despite his repeated requests and court orders to the contrary — and only about four hours of access, during trial, just before closing arguments. (Of course, he had declined, as was his right, to be represented by a lawyer with unlimited access to legal materials.) The California courts rejected his argument that his restricted library access violated his Sixth Amendment rights. Once his sentence became final, he petitioned in Federal District Court for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 . The District Court denied relief, but the *10 Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that “the lack of any pretrial access to lawbooks violated Espitia’s constitutional right to represent himself as established by the Supreme Court in Faretta [v.
California, 422 U. S. 806 (1975)].”
Garcia Espitia v. Ortiz, 113 Fed. Appx. 802, 804 (2004). The warden’s petition for certiorari and respondent’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded.
A necessary condition for federal habeas relief here is that the state court’s decision be “contrary to, or involv[e] an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” § 2254(d)(1). Neither the opinion below7 nor any of the appellate cases it relies on, identifies a source in our case law for the law library access right other than Faretta .
See id., at 804 (relying on Bribiesca v. Galaza, 215 F. 3d 1015, 1020 (CA9 2000) (quoting Milton v. Morris, 767 F. 2d 1443, 1446 (CA9 1985)));
ibid. (“Faretta controls this case”).
The federal appellate courts have split on whether Faretta , which establishes a Sixth Amendment right to self-representation, implies a right of the pro se defendant to have access to a law library. Compare Milton, supra, with United States v. Smith, 907 F. 2d 42, 45 (CA6 1990) (“[B]y knowingly and intelligently waiving his right to counsel, the appellant also relinquished his access to a law library”);
United States ex rel. George v. Lane, 718 F. 2d 226, 231 (CA7 1983) (similar). That question cannot be resolved here, however, as it is clear that Faretta does not, as § 2254(d)(1) requires, “clearly establis[h]” the law library access right. In fact, Faretta says nothing about any specific legal aid that the State owes a pro se criminal defendant. The Bribiesca court and the court below therefore erred in holding, based on Faretta , that a violation of a law library access right is a basis for federal habeas relief.
*11 The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
How later courts describe this case
Explanatory parentheticals written by citing courts — 21 in all; the most informative distinct ones are shown.
-
(finding that federal habeas relief is unavailable based on the denial of expert funding to a self-represented defendant)
-
(noting that access to a prison law library may derive from the Sixth Amendment right to counsel)
-
(finding that absent a Supreme Court case establishing a particular right, federal court inference of such a right is not a basis upon which to grant federal habeas relief)
-
(finding that a defendant who elected to proceed pro se on state court charges did not have a viable habeas corpus claim on the basis that he was denied access to a law library during pretrial confinement)
-
(construing Faretta v. California , 422 U.S. 806, 95 S. Ct. 2525 (1975))
-
(noting, in the context of habeas review under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, that “Faretta says nothing about any specific legal aid that the State owes a pro se criminal defendant” and so does not “clearly establish” a pro se defendant’s right to access a law library)
-
(“We have repeatedly held that a state court’s interpretation of state law, 12 including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court 13 sitting in habeas corpus”)
-
(“A supervisor is only liable for constitutional violations of his subordinates if the supervisor participated in or directed the violations, or knew of the violations and failed to act to prevent them. There is no respondeat superior liability under section 1983.”)
Cited by 93 cases
View all citing references →- U.S. Supreme Court3
- U.S. Courts of Appeals26
- Federal District Courts48
- Bankruptcy Courts1
- State Highest Courts3
- State Appellate Courts12
Relies on it most ⓘ
Most recent
- Gonzalez v. Jane Doe
- Anthony Colbourne, an individual, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated v. Sysco San Diego Inc., a Delaware corporation; and DOES 1 through 50
- Raymond Curtis v. Sheriff Chad Chronister, et. al.
- William Waltz v. T. Miranda
- Dustin Reller v. Donell Welch, Administrator Pennington County Jail, in her individual and official capacity; Robert Yantis, Jail Commander at Pennington County Jail, in his individual and official capacity; Wade Anderson, Captain at Pennington County Jail, in his individual and official capacity; Capt. Kathleen Houston, Captain at Pennington County Jail, in her individual and official capacity; Brian Mueller, Pennington County Sheriff, in his individual and official capacity; and Pennington County, in its individual and official capacity.
- Terrence Paris v. Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections
Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.